POST a QUESTION or READ FAQsabout the purchase of replacement FPE Stab Lok circuit breakers: where thtey are obtained, where they are made, are they tested, how they may be expected to perform, whether or not you should use them

Replacement FPE Stab-Lok® circuit breakers are unlikely to reduce the failure risk of this equipment. We recommend that residential FPE Stab-Lok® electrical panels be replaced entirely or the entire panel bus assembly be replaced, regardless of FPE model number or FPE year of manufacture. We do not sell circuit breakers nor any other products.

What is the Proper Repair for FPE Stab-Lok® Panels and Circuit Breakers?

Homeowners and renovators who encounter these panels should replace the entire panel and circuit breaker set with new equipment. Panel replacement, can involve significant expense, typically $800 to $1800 depending on service size and other factors.

First of all, there is no data suggesting that new stock, replacement FPE breakers,
or "new old stock" FPE breakers found in storage somewhere perform any better than the ones already in the FPE Stab-Lok® panel.

In fact, limited testing of replacement FPE Stab-Lok® circuit breakers also detected failures to trip in response to overcurrent conditions.

In at least some cases, replacement circuit breakers are manufactured in Asia as copies of the original, problematic breaker design, as we discuss at #3 below.

2. Other FPE problems besides circuit breakers

FPE Second, there are other functional and safety concerns in the panel besides the breakers themselves. We've seen panel bus damage, panel bus
meltdowns, and failure of breakers to remain secured in or onto the connecting bus itself.

See REPLACEMENT PANELS for some panel replacement
alternatives that might reduce the repair cost.

For several reasons We do not recommend attempting to
"repair" an individual failed Stab-Lok® breaker by buying a replacement either from used stock, new stock,
or "compatible" stock:

The replacement equipment has not been independently tested and demonstrated to perform any better than the original materials

Engineers involved in this research have explained that a good part of the source of product failure for FPE Stab-Loks was in the original design and its specifications.

It appears that while there were some "on the fly" (and unapproved) changes from time to time on the manufacturing line for this product, there was never a redesign suitable to attempt to "design out" the product failure.

One expert opined to us privately that he believed that the original product's price point in the electrical equipment market was at the low end, and that had Federal Pacific attempted a redesign they'd not have had a product they could sell at their price point.

There are other hazards in the equipment besides the breakers, including bus and bus insulation meltdowns and shorts.

A discussion of the sale of replacement FPE circuit breakers including comments and the opinion of a sales representative from a company selling replacement FPE circuit breakers along with a test report for those breakers is found
at FPE Stab-Lok® : FIRES WAITING TO HAPPEN

UBI (Unique Breakers Inc) FPE Replacement Circuit Breakers provided by Connecticut Electric have been the subject of limited independent testing and field failure reports as well as online discussion (and disagreement) with the manufacturer. See

2014 UBI Circuit Breaker Test Results, included later in this article reports on a small sample, Dr. J. Aronstein found 11 failures out of 26 UBI breakers tested by the end of 2014. "Overall, I have now tested 23 UBI Stab-Lok type breakers, with 8 failures. I have also tested 3 UBI Zinsco replacement type breakers, and all 3 failed to trip as required at 135%."

FPE replacement circuit breakers (UBI) were tested and are reported on in a small sample size in Aronstein'sFPE HAZARDS - 2012 [PDF] Page 10, Table 3, for test data on replacement breakers for Stab-Lok panels. Two failures out of 12 for the 2-pole breakers, one of which jammed were UBI products. Also note in this report the U.S. CPSC note added to press release (Section 10, page 21).

Note: while there have been field failure reports of this product as well as failures in independent testing, the total sample size remains too small for high-confidence statistical inference. In our opinion both prudent avoidance (or replacement) as well as further testing are merited - Editor

4. A few other warnings about things people try to reduce the hazards of FPE Stab-Lok® Breakers:

"Exercising" the circuit breakers by turning them on and off has not been shown to "un-stick" or in any other manner improve the probability of working properly, and conversely, such activity may in fact increase the chances of a future failure

"Testing" circuit breakers by applying a load may give an instantaneous picture of the performance of individual breakers but it does not predict their performance when a real safety problem occurs (overcurrent) later. More important, except if performed by a very expert person, in-place testing is very dangerous, risking fires in the building being tested.

In sum, if you could replace all the FPE Stab-Lok® equipment with (somehow magically obtained) all "new" FPE Stab-Lok® equipment (found in a used-or new-old-stock warehouse for example) the risk level for the building would not be sufficiently different from before the replacement and would remain high: there remains a latent risk of fire from failure of these breakers to trip in response to overcurrent.

Dan, the one point that I find very confusing is why Schneider-Federal Pioneer Stablok panels and breakers have not been shown to have an elevated risk of danger--except for the relatively few breakers subject to the recall. If the stablok design is inherently dangerous, Federal Pioneer breakers should seize frequently enough to result in a "body count."
It does seem that the one FPE panel shown has buss corresponding to Jesse Aronstein's "Type C," direct insertion; is this the main difference? If so, does it reduce heating to a sufficient extent to a sufficient extent that the better environment overcomes any inherent inadequacy in the breaker design?

Also, when you describe Asian replacement stab-loks as similarly inadequate, are the breakers you tested NRTL-listed?
Thanks

(Oct 2, 2012) Mike said:

Still have seen nothing regarding FPE Replacements, such as being made by American Circuit Breaker, except, "not recommended", "no evidence the replacement is any better", ect., and other opinions. The testing and research into FPE is extensive and proven. Why, as you have many resources available to minutely test the originals, do you rely on mere opinion and conjecture regarding the replacements. In my experience, I have seen none of the supposed problems with the so called "split buses" buses or other parts of the FPE panel, excepting wire bending radius inadequacies, so it seems a repacement of the FPE breakers with AMC breakers would work satisfactorily. AMC has been UL tested, and approved. They have not been proved to be unsafe.

Reply:

Anon and Mike:

There are certainly field reports of FP failures from the Canadian product, but in point of fact we have very little data from the Canadian installations and too few tested breaker samples to support an unequivocal conclusion about their performance. However, in speaking with a Schneider engineer several years ago, it was made clear that there was no product redesign from the original defective FPE design. I asked Schnieder where their manufacturing line equipment came from, figuring that perhaps the manufacture, testing, or QA were different from the offending plant(s) in the U.S. but the company appeared to get nervous and declined to offer further information.

Keep in mind that the FPE defects are a latent hazard - the breakers fail to repond properly to an overcurrent. If an overcurrent does not happen, no evidence of failure shows up. We do not have a study of differences in electrical wiring and installations between the U.S. & Canadian homes, nor a study of differences in frequency of overcurrent events - in particular, interruptabole electrical ignition events in which a fire will be caused ONLY if the protection device is defective, improperly sized, miswired, tapered with.

Mike,

I much appreciate the discussion, but with respect, your comments and conclusions about the safety of FPE equipment are simply incorrect. The articles found in this section draw from, quote, cite testing that has been performed through 2012.

And I think you'll find that we have documented that the FPE replacements are the identical design, in fact are generally, new old stock that was purchased from FPE. I have asked experts to keep us informed about any additional testing of FPE, FP (Canadian equipment now sold by Schneider) and of the replacement market products.

In fact as the article above cites and Aronstein confirms, testing included a limited number of replacement FPE circuit breakers. No-trip failures were encountered in that group as well.

Aronstein also points out that self-selection of product submitted for "independent" testing is itself problematic. At least in past experiences manufacturers first screened product to weed out failing devices before submitting the remainder for testing. And asy ou know from reading FPE history, there was still more serious test fraud occurring in the in-house tests.

FPE HAZARDS - 2012 [PDF] provides the latest version of independent test reports on FPE Stab-Lok electrical equipment, including replacement circuit breakers, including some from your own company

UBI Replacement Circuit Breaker Failure rate in limited testing: In this report in Table 3, the "two failures out of 12 for the 2-pole breakers, one of which jammed" were UBI - your circuit breakers failed at a rate of 16% for this sample. My understanding that a typical industry no-trip breaker failure rate is less than 0.01%.

What's needed is an amended circuit breaker test procedure that obtains breakers for testing from the open marketplace, from the very same sources that will be used by consumers and electricians when buying replacement circuit breakers.

Watch out: Finally, the fact that you have not personally seen "supposed problems", while it is an understandable reaction, is not sound. One individual's experience is hardly a technically sound approach to product evaluation. Or putting it in fancier language, absence of evidence in one person's personal experience is hardly evidence of absence of a problem. In fact we have both independent test results indicating no-trip failures and field reports indicating no-trip failures of these devices.

Notice: In subsequent discussion reader Mike acknowleged that he works in sales for Connecticut Electric, a vendor of replacement FPE circuit breakers - Ed. See that conversation in detail at FPE Stab-Lok® : FIRES WAITING TO HAPPEN

Reader Question: is my FPE panel part of this FPE warning?

(Nov 2, 2012) Mike H said:

I came across this forum while looking for replacement breakers. I have a Federal Electric Products Company panel Catalog No 108. It does not say Stab Lok anywhere. Is this still part of this FPE warning? I believe the house was built in the late 50's in Wisconsin not New Jersey. I've been in it since 1997.

(Oct 12, 2012) Randy said:

What about the new Connecticut Electric breakers being manufactured and tested?

Reply:

Yes Mike,

FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers were marketed under a variety of names and variatioins on FPE, FP, etc. The design and bus connections are easily recognizable even if labels (which were sometimes swapped by the manufacturer) are confusing.

It's not clear that all replacement circuit breakers are in fact "new", nor have we been able to obtain (despite requests) in-house nor independent test reports focused on just the breakers about which you inquire.

However a limited number of these replacement breakers were included in independent testing reported-on by Aronstein and indeed no-trip circuit breakers were found in that cohort as well.

Some "replacement" FPE circuit breakers in fact are new old stock; others, worse, are used circuit breakers held back by electricians or other suppliers. It's also important to understand that if the same equipment is being used to produce circuit breakers as those that previously performed poorly one would worry about the product produced. It's also important to understand that the design changes contemplated by the successor owners of the FPE product line would have priced the resulting product out of its price point in the marketplace. That's why the successors at one point wanted their money back.

At FPE HISTORY we report on a pertinent court case: Quoting from a 2005 court case American Circuit Breaker Corporation (ACBC) v. Oregon Breakers Inc., we can confirm that despite claims of functional or mechanical differences betweeen U.S. sold and Canadian-Sold FPE or FP Stab-Lok circuit breakers in at least some instances of product source, the products are identical. Quoting [note that ACBC refers to the American Circuit Breakr Company]:

The essential facts are undisputed. ACBC holds the STAB-LOK trademark in the United States. Schneider Canada holds the STAB-LOK trademark in Canada. Federal Pioneer Limited ("Pioneer"), a subsidiary of Schneider Canada, manufactures circuit breakers for itself and ACBC. The circuit breakers sold by the companies are identical except for the casing color. Pioneer manufactures black circuit breakers for ACBC and gray ones for itself.

The parties have stipulated that, except for the casing color, there are no material differences between the products, and that the gray circuit breakers are "genuine" versions of the black ones.

This dispute arose because Oregon Breakers bought gray circuit breakers from a Canadian third-party supplier and, without permission from ACBC, sold them in the United States. - AMERICAN CIRCUIT BREAKER v. Oregon Breakers, 406 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2005).

Technical note: UBI replacement circuit breakers are sold as replacement units for FPE Stab-Lok or Federal Pacific Electric or Federal Electric or Federal Pioneer circuit breakers. A reader corresponded with us in 2014 expressing concern that his condominium management planned to replace existing FPE breakers with UBI units. Yet there was no supporting test data indicating that such a replacement plan was safe or effective.

The person who sent these UBI circuit breakers to Aronstein for testing is an EE who had one passing about 200% of rated current without tripping. He had his panel changed and the condo board is considering making it a mandatory change in all other units. (They "upgraded" from the original FPE breakers some years ago.)

In a letter to the condominium board the reader's comments included this remark:

In my other condo we also had the same type of electrical panels; back in 2003 we had a fire inside a wall of one of the units which caused extensive damage, we were fortunate that no one was injured.

Except from private email, J. Aronstein to a reader who contributed UBI circuit breakers for testing:

Here are the results of the tests on the UBI "Stab-Lok" (FPE replacement) circuit breakers that you sent. The breakers were tested at 135%, which is the required UL "must trip" level. Those that failed to trip at 135% (sustained for one hour minimum) were subjected to higher current until they tripped or reached 200% of rated current.

(3) 15 amp single-pole, (2) failed 135% test

(1) 15 amp 2-pole, OK

(2) 20 amp single-pole, (2) failed 135% test

(1) 50 amp 2-pole, failed 135% test

Five of the seven UBI breakers that you sent failed to trip as required at 135% of rated current.

The sample size is small, but it may properly reflect the state of UBI's quality control at the time your breakers were purchased. Do you happen to know about when that was?

Overall, I have now tested 23 UBI Stab-Lok type breakers, with 8 failures. I have also tested 3 UBI Zinsco replacement type breakers, and all 3 failed to trip as required at 135%.

That totals 11 failures out of 26 UBI breakers tested.

Thank you for making these breakers available for testing. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you Dr. Aronstein, the failure rate is alarming (above 70%). These breakers have a sticker date of 2004. Did the breakers that failed the 135% test did eventually trip at higher current below 200% of the rated current? - E.K. to J Aronstein & D Friedman, 12/3/2014

FPE Fire Report Filed with US CPSC

Report No. 20140520-9B4E8-2147444369 was Submitted to CPSC
1 Website

donotreply@cpsc.gov via bounce.secureserver.net
Attachments5/20/14

to editor
Daniel Friedman,

Thank you for using SaferProducts.gov to submit your Report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). We received your Report No. 20140520-9B4E8-2147444369 on Tuesday, May 20, 2014.

Attached is a PDF copy of your Report. This is the only time you will be provided a copy of your Report. We suggest that you save it for future reference. Occasionally, the CPSC will contact a submitter to clarify information provided in a Report or to gather additional information. A representative from the CPSC may contact you in the future.

How will CPSC use this Report?

Reports we receive help us in our mission to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death related to thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. CPSC reviews every Report that is submitted. Where appropriate, we may undertake additional product investigations.

CPSC staff cannot respond to every Report on an individual basis. However, your Report is extremely important to CPSC because we are an agency that relies on Reports such as this to help us do our job.

What Happens Next?

If your Report meets the minimum requirements for publication on SaferProducts.gov, which include your consent to publish the Report, CPSC will send it to the identified manufacturer or private labeler within 5 business days, where practicable. If you provided consent, the manufacturer or private labeler will also receive your contact information, and may contact you to verify the information in your Report. A manufacturer or private labeler will have an opportunity to comment on your Report or make a claim that it contains confidential or materially inaccurate information. Reports that meet the minimum requirements for publication should be posted on SaferProducts.gov 10 business days after CPSC sends the Report to the manufacturer or private labeler.

Reports that do not meet the minimum requirements for publication will be maintained for internal use by CPSC.

If you have any questions, please visit www.SaferProducts.gov, or call (800) 638-2772.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

No FAQs have been posted for this page. Try the search box below or CONTACT US by email if you cannot find the answer you need at InspectApedia.

Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia

Questions & answers or comments about the purchase of replacement FPE Stab Lok circuit breakers: where thtey are obtained, where they are made, are they tested, how they may be expected to perform, whether or not you should use them.

Use the "Click to Show or Hide FAQs" link just above to see recently-posted questions, comments, replies, try the search box just below, or if you prefer, post a question or comment in the Comments box below and we will respond promptly.

Technical Reviewers & References

Note: as we didn't add this reviewers list until 2007, this list of technical reviewers is incomplete; we have received comments and suggestions regarding this topic, edits and remarks included, from engineers and management from the US CPSC, electricians (many listed at our page on field reports of FPE failures), home inspectors, licensed electricians, and electrical engineers, and even a few attorneys and real estate agents, since 1986. Technical review, critique, content suggestions, questions, or clarifications are invited and where a contributor wishes, credit and links will be provided to that source. Contact us to provide feedback.

Alan Carson, Carson Dunlop, Associates, Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Carson is a home inspection professional, educator, researcher, writer, and a principal of Carson Dunlop Associates, a Toronto home inspection and education firm. Mr. Carson is a past president of ASHI, the American Society of Home Inspectors

Licensed Electricians: FPE FAILURE FIRE PHOTOS includes electricians who have provided cases and photographs of field failures of FPE equipment at this website.

Private opinion: from an electrical engineer involved in government testing of FPE Stab-Lok® equipment, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak for the agency with whom he was employed.

Homeowners, Home Inspectors, Electricians: FPE FAILURE FIELD REPORTS includes anecdotal field reports provided by a range of contributors including electricians (and some home owners or home inspectors) who have provided cases and photographs of field failures of FPE equipment at this website

The Home Reference Book - the Encyclopedia of Homes, Carson Dunlop & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, 25th Ed., 2012, is a bound volume of more than 450 illustrated pages that assist home inspectors and home owners in the inspection and detection of problems on buildings. The text is intended as a reference guide to help building owners operate and maintain their home effectively. Field inspection worksheets are included at the back of the volume. Special Offer: For a 10% discount on any number of copies of the Home Reference Book purchased as a single order. Enter INSPECTAHRB in the order payment page "Promo/Redemption" space. InspectAPedia.com editor Daniel Friedman is a contributing author.

Or choose the The Home Reference eBook for PCs, Macs, Kindle, iPad, iPhone, or Android Smart Phones. Special Offer: For a 5% discount on any number of copies of the Home Reference eBook purchased as a single order. Enter INSPECTAEHRB in the order payment page "Promo/Redemption" space.